Hi Rich.
It's arbitrary it ignore the first efforts (which actually would have gone back to Prince Hall's personal efforts) skip ahead decades and declare those the first serious efforts.
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words for me to imply that the earlier efforts at reconciliation weren't "serious", of course they were intended seriously by those who were involved.
What I mean, however, is that those were fairly isolated efforts, there wasn't a general perception among State GL members that something needed to be done, unlike the last 20 years when there has (at long last!) been a widespread acknowledgement that the previous situation was unacceptable.
It's been going on for 200+ years, tolerated by all of masonry except those very, very few jurisdictions that stood up for brotherhood.
That's a rather US-centric viewpoint. Everywhere outside the US, GLs have always been consistent that racism is unacceptable. Here in England, for example, we've been racially integrated from the beginning, and of course we were the ones who gave Prince Hall his warrant and never saw any reason not to do so.
Non-US GLs have always disapproved of segregationism in US masonry and have always said so, but of course it's not our jurisdiction, and not surprisingly the US jurisdictions objected to outsiders telling them how to run their affairs. There wasn't much that could be done about it until some of the US GLs were willing to take a lead, and (as history showed) one GL at a time wasn't enough, it required several US GLs simultaneously standing up and insisting that something had to be done.
There is a host of interactions and declarations, including alterations to GL constitutions excluding based on race and pulling recognition for not excluding based on race. Again - FULLY tolerated.
Only in the US. Non-US GLs never approved of it, but reluctantly tolerated it because there was nothing we could do about it from the outside.
Here is a healthy dose of quotes and links to other resources throughout the centuries:
http://tsmr.org/ph.html (follow all the links for history)
Good resource, thanks for that.
GLs around the world saw constitutions change, and more GLs following masonic principles pushing brotherhood chastised and excluded and "let it ride" for two hundred years.
GLs around the world had never had segregationist rules. But what did you expect us in the non-US GLs to do about US segregationism? Our disapproval was always clear, but obviously your GLs are each sovereign over their own Lodges. For so long as US GLs stood united (or very nearly united) in favour of segregationism, the opinion of outsiders carried little weight. This was and is a specifically American issue, not an issue around the world.
Reflecting on "our peculiar system of morality", how long do you think the following would be tolerated in masonry?
Each GL would make its own decisions, but I'll try to guess what I think UGLE would do in each case. Obviously these are my guesses, not a statement of policy by my GL!
"* Removing the VSL from the lodge"
Instant withdrawal of recognition, but could be re-instated if they later agreed to put the VSL back. (And there have been cases of this.)
"* Admitting women"
Instant withdrawal of recognition. No possibility of reinstatement whilst any women remained members. (But I don't think there has been any case of this within a body which had not already been de-recognised for other irregularities.)
"* admitting atheists"
Instant withdrawal of recognition. No possibility of reinstatement whilst any atheists remained members. (And there have been cases of this.)
"* Fornication in lodge or at lodge events"
It rather depends what you mean by fornication and under what circumstances.
At one end of the scale, what an unmarried Brother and his girlfriend might choose to do in the privacy of their hotel-room at a Lodge social event is none of our business.
At the other end of the scale, outraging public decency would bring masonry into disrepute, and we'd assume that the local jurisdiction would take appropriate disciplinary action. Even so, the mis-conduct of individual members is not likely to affect recognition because it's (presumably!) not an issue of GL policy. (The only example I know is the recent criminal conviction of some US members of the "Royal Order of Jesters" for trafficking in prostitutes - I assume that they've been expelled, or are in the process of being expelled.)
"* Excluding Black men from masonry"
Withdrawal of recognition if it were anywhere except the US, but could be re-instated if they later reversed the policy. Even in the case of the US, it would nowadays attract withdrawal of recognition if the exclusion were explicitly on racial grounds. But none of the US GLs still officially maintain an explicit racial bar, although obviously some still adhere to various technicalities which have the same effect.
Note, however, that this is a different question from the more particular issue of PHA recognition. A GL which has no racial barriers might have other reasons for not recognising PHA. For example, consider Ontario - in no way a racist GL (and with plenty of black members in its own ranks, probably more than in the whole of its local PHGL), but hesitant about recognising PHA on the basis that the existence of PHA perpetuated segregationism. Now you might disagree with them about that, but it's a legitimate masonic opinion to oppose PHA on this basis.
Unfortunately, of course, it's very difficult to prove racism when GLs rely on other technicalities to maintain racial exclusion without actually admitting that their purpose is racist. Maybe some of them secretly wear pointy hoods and sheets on other occasions, but they don't turn up in Lodge dressed as Klansmen. What do you expect other GLs to do about it?
T & F,
Huw